Setting aside a Washington judgment: eleven grounds, and only three carry the one-year limit

Most relief-from-judgment rules descend from the federal six grounds. Washington's CR 60(b) has eleven, several with no federal counterpart, and the timing rule reaches only three of them.

The eleven grounds

CR 60(b): on motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or their legal representative from a final judgment, order or proceeding for:

1. Mistakes, inadvertence, surprise, excusable neglect or irregularity in obtaining a judgment or order;
2. Erroneous proceedings against a minor or person of unsound mind, when the condition of such defendant does not appear in the record, nor the error in the proceedings;
3. Newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under CR 59(b);
4. Fraud (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party;
5. The judgment is void;
6. The judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged, or a prior judgment on which it is based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective application;
7. If the defendant was served by publication, relief may be granted as prescribed in RCW 4.28.200;
8. Death of one of the parties before the judgment in the action;
9. Unavoidable casualty or misfortune preventing the party from prosecuting or defending;
10. Error in judgment shown by a minor, within 12 months after arriving at full age; or
11. Any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.

Grounds 2, 7, 8, 9 and 10 have no direct federal analogue. Ground 1 also adds "irregularity in obtaining a judgment or order" to the familiar mistake/inadvertence/surprise/excusable-neglect list — a separate concept covering procedural defects in how the judgment was obtained.

Note that Washington's ground 5 (void judgment) sits where the federal rule puts it at (4), and the satisfied/released ground is at 6 rather than 5. The numbering does not track the federal rule, so a citation to "CR 60(b)(4)" means fraud in Washington and a void judgment federally.

The one-year limit covers only three grounds

CR 60(b), final paragraph:

The motion shall be made within a reasonable time and for reasons (1), (2) or (3) not more than 1 year after the judgment, order, or proceeding was entered or taken.

So mistake/irregularity, erroneous proceedings against a minor or person of unsound mind, and newly discovered evidence carry the year. Fraud — ground (4) — does not, which is a meaningful departure from the federal rule, where fraud is inside the one-year cap.

Everything else is bounded only by reasonable time. And ground 10 has its own period built in: an error shown by a minor, within 12 months after arriving at full age.

The paragraph continues with a tolling provision for a party under a disability, which is why the rule text should be read in full where a minor or incapacitated person is involved.

Void judgments

Ground (5) is the route where the court never had jurisdiction — including where service was never validly made. It carries no fixed deadline in the rule.

Washington's commencement rules make this worth checking. Because CR 3(a) allows an action to be commenced by service alone, and CR 3(a) makes service void if the plaintiff fails to file within 14 days of a written demand, there are more ways for a Washington judgment to rest on defective process than in a filing-only system. The guide on responding to a Washington complaint covers that.

Service by publication has its own statute

Ground (7) routes to RCW 4.28.200 rather than supplying its own standard. That statute — not the rule — sets what a defendant served by publication must show and by when. It isn't part of the court rules, so it sits outside what this site publishes.

Where this fits with default

CR 55(c)(1): "For good cause shown and upon such terms as the court deems just, the court may set aside an entry of default and, if a judgment by default has been entered, may likewise set it aside in accordance with rule 60(b)."

The familiar two tiers — good cause before judgment, CR 60(b) after. And Washington gives two earlier exits before either: CR 55(a)(3)'s five days' notice to a party who has appeared, and CR 55(a)(2)'s rule that a party who appeared may respond at any time before the hearing on the default motion.

CR 55(c)(2) adds a venue-specific route: a default judgment entered in a county of improper venue "is valid but will on motion be vacated for irregularity pursuant to rule 60(b)(1)" — which is what ground (1)'s "irregularity" language is doing there.

Procedure

CR 60(e) sets out how the application is made: by motion supported by affidavit stating the facts constituting a defense and the grounds for vacating, with the court then entering an order to show cause directing the adverse party to appear on a stated date. The order and supporting affidavit must be served as prescribed for a summons.

That is more formal than the federal practice of a simple noticed motion, and skipping the show-cause structure is a common procedural misstep.

How the grounds and limits compare

A short checklist

1. Pick the ground by number, carefully — Washington's numbering does not match the federal rule's.
2. Check whether the one-year cap even applies. Only (1), (2) and (3) carry it; fraud does not.
3. Use CR 60(e)'s procedure — motion, affidavit stating the facts constituting a defense, and an order to show cause served as a summons.
4. If default hasn't gone to judgment, CR 55(c)'s good-cause standard is easier.
5. If you appeared, CR 55(a)(2) may still let you respond right up to the hearing.
6. If service was by publication, RCW 4.28.200 governs, not the rule.

Where these rules live

• Wash. CR 3 — Commencement of Action
• Wash. CR 6 — Time
• Wash. CR 12 — Defenses and Objections
• Wash. CR 55 — Default and Judgment
• Wash. CR 56 — Summary Judgment
• Wash. CR 60 — Relief from Judgment or Order

The Washington courts publish self-help material at courts.wa.gov. This page explains what the rules say. It isn't legal advice, and ground (7) turns on RCW 4.28.200, a statute this site doesn't publish.